BBC bias

Sometimes It’s Too Blatant To Let It Go

FireShot Capture 108 - Prince Andrew_ USA demands Duke faces_ - https___metro.co.uk_2020_06_07_usa

Last night the story came out that the US Department of Justice would rather like a wee word or two with Prince Andrew regarding his connections with Jeffrey Epstein. Well, they have wanted to have a little chat with him for a while, but they actually filed a ‘Mutual Legal Assistance’ request. This “moves Andrew into the realms of a criminal investigation”.

Someone posted it on twitter last night and I asked for a source. Apparently The Sun broke the story (I’m not linking to them here) and it was later covered by the Metro, Sky News and others.

So I kept looking at the BBC website. Nothing.

And again this morning, nothing.

This potentially enormous story. Nothing.

Then I looked at the BBC page that covers the daily headlines in the newspapers. That link is the one for 8th June. Even though they normally cover The Sun and occasionally The Metro, there is nothing from them on the page. They preferred to mention something about Bugs Bunny in the Daily Mail.

Later on, a BBC story about it did come online. If you decide to read it, you may want to note that it is more or less ENTIRELY from the point of view of Andrew and his lawyers.

FireShot Capture 106 - Prince Andrew 'offered to help Jeffre_ - https___www.bbc.com_news_uk-52969699

Why the initial silence? Then why would they have decided to publish an article on it from that angle?

Do you think the BBC would do that for everyone? Or is it more likely that the defence of the British State is interwoven into the fabric of the BBC?

Here is an interesting little clip in that regard, a different situation, definitely, but a similar theme…

Eagerly Awaiting

I-Married-a-Communist.jpgImpartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences.  It applies to all our output and services – television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines.  We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The above is from the BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality.

Try and keep that quote in mind as you listen to the BBC’s (most recent) hatchet job on Marxism. You can listen to it here.

I am not a Marxist but I did bristle a bit as with a combination of insinuation, overt statements and “Oh come now, it’s all just a bit silly and you’ll grow out of it”, the programme does its best to show that it’s all never worked before and couldn’t work ever, before bringing us on to the new Red Techno Menace.

I am eagerly awaiting the next documentary which will, in the interests of BBC impartiality of course, show why it is still relevant and why, just like capitalism, along with the horrors there have been a list of achievements by people following that ideology.

I suspect I may be eagerly awaiting for a long time, particularly given that the BBC, on the very same page about its guidelines, gives itself a get-out clause and an excuse for NOT having any kind of impartiality…

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints.  Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.

red-menace_sml-1

Altered State

I have to be honest and say that I had been putting off watching this documentary by the fabulous Phantom Power.

This wasn’t because I didn’t think it would be good, quite the opposite in fact, because his other films are great. However, I did know it was likely to make me angry, and that kept me back.

I just watched it and it did make me angry, but it is a must see just the same.